The death of Curazon Aquino, the former president of the Philippines, brings up the issue of women as political leaders. Mrs. Aquino was a political novice who was thrust into the spotlight after the assassination of her reformer husband. Despite her political inexperience, she was swept into office through a wave of "people power," after President Ferdinand Marcos claimed victory in a fraudulent election which most people believed Mrs. Aquino had won. She was able to guide the Philippines through the difficult transition from the autocratic government of Marcos to democracy. Although she rose to power by non-electoral means, her position was validated by a democratic constitution the next year. Her non-violent overthrow of Marcos has been an inspiration to a number of non-violent uprisings throughout the world. Although she was a rather mediocre president, she managed to start the Philippines on the road to democracy and provided the democratic movement with a leader when it needed one. The Philippines has had two successful electoral transfers and two more attempts at "people power" uprisings since she left office. She used her inexperience and what she called "my sincerity" to offer the Filipino people hope for the future. She became the conscience of her nation. Her leadership is considerd the highpoint of modern Philippine history.
She is part of a very exclusive group of female leaders including the very impressive Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia. So here is the question. It is very simple. You only have to answer yes or no.
Would the world be a better or different place if there were more women in positions of leadership of nations? Yes or No? Vote now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ms. Hansbury
ReplyDeleteI cannot justify answering simply yes or no. That is just not my style. I prefer a long winded version of yes.
I do the would certainly be a better AND different place if woman won. I do not believe that either sex is genetically better at leading. I have no belief in Social Darwinism. My saying yes, therefore does not signify that I believe woman are genetically better leaders. Simply that yes the world would be different and probably better.
Men after all have led the world by and large the entire history of human kind and look at our collective history. It speaks for itself. Look at the world today and how would things look if more women were in change. Would there be less wars? That is a hard question to answer because women are just as prone to being hawks as men. During the Primaries in the United States for instance, Hillary Clinton was considered more Hawkish than both Edwards and Obama. It is known that Clinton as Secretary of State has pushed for a more combative and hawkish policy towards the Iranians. A policy that the President has not seen fit to carry out. I could continue I just wanted to add my own two cents and couldnt resist saying more than YES after being asked to say only YES.
I vote YEA!!
Another thought I just had. Are women leaders at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting their country during times of invasion or attack by a foreign adversary.
ReplyDeleteThe two examples I came up with were Queen Elizabeth I and Golda Meir and Tzipi Livni
Queen Elizabeth I was able to fend off successfully the Spanish Armada in 1588.
And in Israel Golda Meir was Prime Minister for several years (I don't know the exact dates) and Tzipi Livni came within ONE seat of becoming Prime Minister of Israel. I find this very interesting. Israel only 60 years old and at in a perpetual state of defensive and heightened alert against terrorism and armed conflicts and invasion or you could go so far as to say complete destruction they have one women Prime Minister and almost another. This is compared to the United States where in our 200 plus years of age we haven't hand one female president and only as recently as 2006 had a female (Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House) pick up the reigns of a very important and powerful government position. I just found that tid bit interesting.... I am done now!
I'd say that no, Women are not better Leaders then men, and that they are pretty much equal. I will also say that yes, women leaders so far have been better then male leaders. It is expected that a male will take office as a president or leader. In order for a female to take the reigns she has to be exceptional to overcome the social barriers of becoming a female leader.
ReplyDeleteI also think we celebrate good female leaders more often than good male leaders because they are female, so they get noticed more.
And Marie Antoinette was a leader even though she wasn't the one in charge of everything. She had a lot of power and she royal messed that up.
I guess my point is that it is easy to ignore the bad ones and the good ones when you look at female leaders from their sex as opposed to just being a good leader.
It may not be better to say which sex is better but to make a list of all the great female leaders and male leaders and then see how those indivual leaders compare to each other.
Michael makes an important point. Have we had enough women leaders to be able to judge if women are better leaders? I don't believe women would necessarily be better. However, I think it is ridiculous to limit our pool of leaders to 50% of the population. To eliminate 50% of the talent. I want the best leaders, regardless of gender. However, as has been raised with the Sotomayor hearings, women do bring a different perspective to issues. I think we need as many perspectives, options and ideas as possible. So, I think we would be better off if we considered that the best man for the job may be a woman.
ReplyDelete